PDA

View Full Version : Where is the ZFS?


Supermacguy
Jun 12, 2013, 08:27 AM
I guess anyone's hopes of ZFS are totally dashed, as there seems to be no mention of this at all. Or does anyone have any bits of info about the file system they can share? Does moving to PCIe storage have any impact on whether ZFS could be used on it, or that it even matters to flash based storage?

maflynn
Jun 12, 2013, 08:30 AM
Apple stated a long time ago that ZFS was not going to happen I think like 2 or 3 versions of OSX ago.

justperry
Jun 12, 2013, 08:30 AM
I tried it a few times, last time about a year ago, when I ejected a USB ZFS drive and after this unplugged it the System crashed (Known bug), if that is still the case I doubt Apply would go to ZFS.

wrldwzrd89
Jun 12, 2013, 08:54 AM
ZFS's license is incompatible with the license used for Darwin, the underpinnings of OS X. That fact alone means ZFS won't be coming to OS X. However, this does not mean Apple isn't thinking about the file system. They probably just chose to keep silent.

grahamperrin
Oct 5, 2013, 01:11 PM
ZFS's license is incompatible with the license used for Darwin …

Please, how would the CDDL (http://opensource.org/licenses/CDDL-1.0) prevent Apple from including software to work with disks that use ZFS?

OT for a moment, let's consider GPLv2. With Linuxฎ it should be fine to build and redistribute binary ZFS kernel modules (http://open-zfs.org/wiki/Talk:FAQ#Linux_licensing_questions).

Glancing at Apple Public Source License 2.0 (http://opensource.org/licenses/APSL-2.0) I can't see anything that would prevent, for example, distribution (by Apple) of KEXTs for ZFS.

APSL 2.0 does allow linking with other files that may be entirely proprietary (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/apsl.html).


(If I'm missing something that's relevant to absolute prevention, sorry; I'm not great at interpreting licenses.)

----------

I tried it …

MacZFS or ZEVO?

If ZEVO, which edition was it? (Was it the free version from GreenBytes?)

wrldwzrd89
Oct 5, 2013, 01:49 PM
Please, how would the CDDL (http://opensource.org/licenses/CDDL-1.0) prevent Apple from including software to work with disks that use ZFS?

OT for a moment, let's consider GPLv2. With Linuxฎ it should be fine to build and redistribute binary ZFS kernel modules (http://open-zfs.org/wiki/Talk:FAQ#Linux_licensing_questions).

Glancing at Apple Public Source License 2.0 (http://opensource.org/licenses/APSL-2.0) I can't see anything that would prevent, for example, distribution (by Apple) of KEXTs for ZFS.

APSL 2.0 does allow linking with other files that may be entirely proprietary (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/apsl.html).


(If I'm missing something that's relevant to absolute prevention, sorry; I'm not great at interpreting licenses.)

----------



MacZFS or ZEVO?

If ZEVO, which edition was it? (Was it the free version from GreenBytes?)
The situation has changed with the advent of stuff like OpenIndiana. Heck, FreeBSD itself uses ZFS now, as of 10.0-beta1!

grahamperrin
Oct 5, 2013, 05:09 PM
Thanks, there remains the question with regard to your previous post:

> Please, how would the CDDL prevent Apple from
> including software to work with disks that use ZFS?

wrldwzrd89
Oct 5, 2013, 06:18 PM
Thanks, there remains the question with regard to your previous post:

> Please, how would the CDDL prevent Apple from
> including software to work with disks that use ZFS?
I do not know for sure as I haven't studied the licenses enough to know. That being said, the CDDL and the BSD license ought to be compatible with one another, so there shouldn't be a problem now. There definitely was a license clash before, though.

Nicholas Savage
Oct 20, 2013, 01:53 PM
I have 14 odd TB of data sitting on the now seemingly abandonedZevo community edition http://getgreenbytes.com/solutions/zevo/ on one of my servers. I am loathe to find a new storage solution. . . .it really does work well. Someone just needs to update it for 10.9 :P.

I have this weird feeling that my upgrade to a 10.9 flavored server is going to coincide with a pair of small centos boxes beside it with gluster running on them :P.

musio
Oct 20, 2013, 02:34 PM
apply says 'no way' and then does it a few years later. Steve was famous for that. Who knows, we may see ZFS in the future.

Nicholas Savage
Oct 20, 2013, 02:47 PM
apply says 'no way' and then does it a few years later. Steve was famous for that. Who knows, we may see ZFS in the future.

No. ZFS doesn't really fit into this increasingly mobile-centric bent that Apple is on. (in the consumer-centric frame, at least.) Just look at the decreased emphasis on Server and the pro markets. 3rd party developers and open source have been filling that gap. In back room rack scenarios a mac server gets a 10g or fiber channel card and just ends up running it's storage off the same SAN that all the other servers are running off of. In single server setups (in my experience with my clients) the storage needs are minimal enough that one doesn't need ZFS, or in the case of video work an IOP equipped raid card is needed. (when you want 1000mb/s of throughput for cheap, ZFS isn't ideal :P)


Apple isn't going to provide us with ZFS. I just wish someone would carry on Don's work over at greenbytes. That zfs-mac solution actually worked.

maflynn
Oct 21, 2013, 07:27 AM
apply says 'no way' and then does it a few years later. Steve was famous for that. Who knows, we may see ZFS in the future.

I don't see that happening, HFS+ is getting long in the tooth yet they do not seem in any rush to embrace modern file system features and attributes. That said for my needs, I'm content with HFS+

aaronvan
Oct 21, 2013, 01:01 PM
What advantages over HFS+ does ZFS possess that would excite the ordinary user?

nutmac
Oct 21, 2013, 03:43 PM
What advantages over HFS+ does ZFS possess that would excite the ordinary user?

Most folks would cite 3 benefits: data integrity, data deduplication, and storage pool.

Data integrity: I have had a number of hard disks whose data became corrupted completely unbeknownst to me. And HFS+ retrieves corrupted file as if nothing has gone wrong.

ZFS detects and errors on such files, so you can restore from backup as needed (and automated backup can be made to ignore such files).

Data deduplication: Instead of duplicating identical block and thus wasting space, ZFS can reference blocks of data. One downside to data reduplication is memory requirement, which requires well over a dozen GB of RAM per TB of data (or that much space in flash storage).

Storage pools: Core Storage's Fusion drive more or less replicates storage pools, except that it's not user configurable and is far more limited. ZFS's storage pool is RAID-Z that uses copy-on-write for greater data integrity.

bedifferent
Oct 21, 2013, 04:28 PM
I do not know for sure as I haven't studied the licenses enough to know. That being said, the CDDL and the BSD license ought to be compatible with one another, so there shouldn't be a problem now. There definitely was a license clash before, though.

Yup. Around 10.5 (one of Bertrand Serlet's OS X's), there were hints at ZFS in beta development. It brought the topic of HFS+ and ZFS to the forefront for many. ZFS has many benefits as some have listed, namely:

It is highly scalable, contains intrinsic data integrity and protection features, and supports hybrid pools of storage created from different types of storage media.

Official story:

In June 2007, Sun's then CEO Jonathan Schwartz said Apple had decided ZFS would become the filesystem in Mac OS X 10. It proved to be an inflated claim. After an initial denial, Apple said ZFS would be present only as an option in the Leopard version of Mac OS X, alongside its existing HFS+ file system.

However, earlier this year ZFS was not included in the Snow Leopard update of Mac OS X. At the time Apple stayed silent about the status of ZFS in its operating system development plans.

Now ZFS appears to have been given the heave-ho. Licensing and technology status issues may have been part of the Apple decision. As part of the background, NetApp is suing Sun for patent infringement by ZFS, with Sun counter-suing, and Oracle is buying Sun. The Oracle acquisition has raised doubt over the future status of ZFS, and it's possible that it may just disappear, becoming a foot note in IT history.

(Source: Apple dumps Sun's ZFS (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10/25/apple_drops_zfs/))

In 2010, Oracle acquired Sun Microsystems (http://www.oracle.com/us/sun/index.html), and the rest...

xVeinx
Oct 21, 2013, 05:16 PM
ZFS died about the same time as x-serve. And that is likely the reason.

snarfquest
Oct 21, 2013, 06:04 PM
Oracle has done more harm to Sun then I ever thought possible.

I'm a long time SunOS/Solaris UNIX admin. I've supported Sun gear since the early days. I've completely "had it" with Oracle and I'm moving all my systems to Redhat or Ubuntu depending on need.

I still have about 40 Sun systems left in my datacenter. I refuse to call them Oracle systems! They were all purchased before Oracle bought Sun and none of them have the Oracle label on them. By the end of 2014 I plan to have ZERO Sun systems in our datacenter. Oracle has done a great job at killing Sun. I'm very sad and honestly angry about it but whatever, technology marches on!

ZFS was fantastic. Too bad Oracle now controls it and that will be the death of it. I don't blame Apple for running like the wind away from Oracle. While the ZFS file system is fantastic I wouldn't enter into a bargain with Oracle over it. Apple would be well suited to write their own AFS/HFS upgrade or with luck something much better will come along in the near future. I'm also a fan of Netapp and their WAFL design. There is certainly more then 1 game in town when it comes to filesystems.

grahamperrin
Oct 21, 2013, 08:58 PM
ZFS, mobility, iOS™ and Raspberry Piฎ

… ZFS doesn't really fit into this increasingly mobile-centric …

I don't know whether sources were credible, but there were two articles in 2012:

Why are there ZFS references in the latest iOS 5.1 beta? | iMore (http://www.imore.com/zfs-references-latest-ios-51-beta)
More on Apple and ZFS, speculation on iOS | iMore (http://www.imore.com/apple-zfs-speculation-ios)

Beyond Apple, certainly there's an active project (http://open-zfs.org/wiki/Projects) for ZFS on Raspberry Pi.

ZEVO for OS X

… abandoned … (ZEVO) really does work well. Someone just needs to update it for 10.9 …

GreenBytes keeps very quiet about work in progress. ZEVO is not abandoned.

Earlier this month: "… Working on it. Stay tuned. (https://twitter.com/GetGreenBytes/status/386238456093212672)" and more recently, https://twitter.com/grahamperrin/status/391074976947658752 so we might see a minor change to the ZEVO home page (http://getgreenbytes.com/solutions/zevo/) when Apple releases OS X 10.9.

maflynn
Oct 22, 2013, 05:47 AM
ZFS died about the same time as x-serve. And that is likely the reason.

That's really the major reason, for most consumers the work effort and cost to implement a new FS outweigh any possible benefit for most regular users. I'm not saying its not useful, but I think Apple's move away from enterprise and full embrace of the consumer segment doomed any possible usage of it.

tarjan
Oct 22, 2013, 07:14 AM
Not to mention that http://code.google.com/p/maczfs/ is still alive. Not as recent as zevo (in the public release at least) but there are developers actively working on the project.

ChristianJapan
Oct 22, 2013, 07:33 AM
Im fine with ZFS on my virtual FreeBSD with Xeon, ECC memory and passthrough HBA, plus a number of disks. Acting as my primary NAS. Access from my macs via AFP.
As mentioned earlier the storage pools are quite nice to manage the overall allocation of disk space plus fail-safe operation.

I don't to see the advantage on a single disk iMac or few disks in a (soon outdated) legacy silver MP. So need for Apple to invest here too much.

Nicholas Savage
Nov 9, 2013, 03:43 PM
What advantages over HFS+ does ZFS possess that would excite the ordinary user?

From a light consumer prospective?

In general? Reliability and data protection. ZFS is pretty feature rich in the department of protecting from the uncommon but problematic data loss issues you can get, especially on consumer grade hardware. Better than HFS/NTFS at least.

The nice shiny spot for end users would be usage on home/soho oriented embedded NAS stuff. The ability for soft raid drives to be portable between hardware, resistant to a lot of raid rebuild issues, grow pools/partitions, integrated snapshot functionality, etc. All nice stuff.

Nicholas Savage
Nov 9, 2013, 03:59 PM
ZFS, mobility, iOS™ and Raspberry Piฎ



I don't know whether sources were credible, but there were two articles in 2012:

Why are there ZFS references in the latest iOS 5.1 beta? | iMore (http://www.imore.com/zfs-references-latest-ios-51-beta)
More on Apple and ZFS, speculation on iOS | iMore (http://www.imore.com/apple-zfs-speculation-ios)

Beyond Apple, certainly there's an active project (http://open-zfs.org/wiki/Projects) for ZFS on Raspberry Pi.

ZEVO for OS X



GreenBytes keeps very quiet about work in progress. ZEVO is not abandoned.

Earlier this month: "… Working on it. Stay tuned. (https://twitter.com/GetGreenBytes/status/386238456093212672)" and more recently, https://twitter.com/grahamperrin/status/391074976947658752 so we might see a minor change to the ZEVO home page (http://getgreenbytes.com/solutions/zevo/) when Apple releases OS X 10.9.

Hey graham; I lurk over in the ZEVO forums from time to time. Still have ~20TB of pool space backing a 10.7 Server w/ZEVO.

Kinda see the iOS speculation as what it is. . .speculation. As for raspi stuff; that is a whole different universe. I would rather enjoy dumping some flavor of zfs on linux on the current/future little arm boards I have/will continue to have floating around my house. Kinda looking forward to ditching normal file servers in flavor of lots of low power zfs-backed gluster nodes one day. Totally an edge usage case though for now, eh?

As for GreenByte's hushyness. . . .I can't speak for the rest of the user base but keeping quiet about progress doesn't exactly inspire confidence (in me) when the community release can't be used with release versions of the Mac OS. As a guy who would willingly fork over ~100$ per osx deployment a year for a functional ZFS feature set, I can only find it frustrating. In the next year I'll probably be switching myself and a few clients to something different during future upgrade cycles. Centos + ZFS + gluster, most likely.

grahamperrin
Nov 14, 2013, 02:10 PM
… I lurk over in the ZEVO forums from time to time. Still have ~20TB of pool space backing a 10.7 Server w/ZEVO. …

As for GreenByte's hushyness. . . .I can't speak for the rest of the user base but keeping quiet about progress doesn't exactly inspire confidence (in me) when the community release can't be used with release versions of the Mac OS. …

Yeah, for me too there was a dip in confidence a couple of weeks ago (http://zevo.getgreenbytes.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=5568#p5568) –

… quietly frustrated since June 2013, when seed testing began. I can't say whether my frustrations as a seed tester were any more or less than your frustrations as developer, but believe me: the frustration has been deep, and enduring. …

Whilst I still wish to use Mavericks: for a variety of reasons, I'm over that dip in confidence. With no particular timeframe in mind, I'm confident and on the up.

Nick, keep lurking. I'm as certain as I can be that eventually, the frustrations will end.

scaredpoet
Nov 14, 2013, 11:48 PM
I'm a long time SunOS/Solaris UNIX admin. I've supported Sun gear since the early days. I've completely "had it" with Oracle and I'm moving all my systems to Redhat or Ubuntu depending on need.

Basically doing the same thing at my datacenter, migrating off Sun gear and moving to HP servers and EMC storage. But while Oracle has really hastened Sun's demise, I'll point out that Sun wasn't doing so well for itself prior to the acquisition. Where I work, we spent a ton of cash on Sun StorEdge 6320 clusters, and they turned out to the be most unreliable dogs we've ever had to deal with. Not a month would go by without a controller card, power supply, or fibre channel switch failing on those heaps of junk, and I've never seen such a high failure rate on disks before or since. The Sun V440 servers we used with these clusters weren't much better, either.

Service and sales reps for Sun were seriously bottom of the barrel as well for a few years pre-acquisition. Sun was going downhill fast, and Oracle simply happened to see an opportunity and snatch them up to cannibalize.

Even so, we persevered with them until we called in one day to renew our service contract and our Oracle rep informed us that all that previous Sun hardware we bought had been abruptly EOL'd and they wouldn't even bother coming out to fix anything.... but that they'd be more than happy to sell us some shiny new Oracle Pillar Axiom 600s... by the way, how much money do we have?

Days later, we put out an RFP for new storage hardware, and Oracle was NOT invited to bid, nor have they been since.

Getting to the TL;DR part: If you look at how Oracle is so schizophrenic about licensing and legacy Sun software, it's no wonder Apple abandoned ZFS. You don't know from one day to the next if Oracle is going to decide that the open source Sun software you're using is suddenly switching licenses, or being abandoned altogether. It isn't about whether the current ZFS license is compatible, but rather whether Oracle will decide to play nice with Apple one day, then suddenly turn around and demand millions in licensing fees for its use of ZFS.

grahamperrin
Nov 15, 2013, 04:05 AM
… if Oracle is going to decide that the open source Sun software you're using is suddenly switching licenses …

How could software that's subject to CDDL become no longer subject to that licence? I can't imagine it.

http://opensource.org/licenses/CDDL-1.0

http://open-zfs.org/wiki/FAQ#Licensing states:

… We do not have the power to change the (CDDL) license of OpenZFS. No single entity holds the copyright to all of the OpenZFS code and all contributors to OpenZFS maintain copyright to their changes. Changing the license would require the consent of each one whose changes are part of the current codebase. That is basically everyone who has contributed since 2001. …

grahamperrin
Nov 15, 2013, 09:04 PM
… there shouldn't be a problem now. There definitely was a license clash before, though.

Whilst I'm loath to revisit history yet again … I would not describe it as a license clash.

In a single sentence, essentially confirmed by Jeff Bonwick (co-founder of the ZFS project) (https://web.archive.org/web/20121221111757/http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/2009-October/033125.html) in October 2009 (a few months before Oracle's January 2010 acquisition of Sun Microsystems):

Apple can currently just take the ZFS CDDL code and incorporate it (like they did with DTrace), but it may be that they wanted a "private license" from Sun (with appropriate technical support and indemnification), and the two entities couldn't come to mutually agreeable terms.

The original author's preamble (https://web.archive.org/web/20110518020301/http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/2009-October/033112.html) (emphasis added by me), in full:

I'm guessing that you'll never see direct evidence given the sensitivity that these negotiations can take. All you'll guess is rumours and leaks of various levels of reliability.

In the four years since then: Jeff and other people in the know have remained suitably quiet on the subject in public. Let's draw a line under that history …

-----

… and with the last few weeks of 2013 and all of 2014 in mind: move on :)

:apple:

grahamperrin
Nov 17, 2013, 11:53 AM
Why do you want ZFS?

Primarily: ZFS for integrity of data.

With HFS Plus I saw corruption of files far too often, with volumes that were – according to Disk Utility – apparently OK. Contradictions such as this should be unacceptable to any sensible end user. However, the vast majority of people who are affected by file corruption never realise the contradiction; never discover the true cause of difficulties with their Macs.

Beyond integrity of data: with ZFS I get much more than can be given by HFS Plus and Core Storage. ZFS is more flexible, more powerful, better documented and so on.

There's a very well established community of developers. The OpenZFS Developer Summit (http://open-zfs.org/wiki/OpenZFS_Developer_Summit) begins tomorrow morning …

grahamperrin
Nov 17, 2013, 01:07 PM
… ZFS, what will that really gain you on a small one or 2 disk system? …

I use ZFS with Mountain Lion on a MacBookPro5,2 with a single internal disk, an sshd. A Core Storage logical volume is given to ZEVO for my ZFS home directory.

I have absolute certainty that my encrypted ZFS home directory is free from errors.

Two of my external hard disk drives, which remain at home, form another ZFS pool. Some of the ZFS file systems within that pool are for backups. Automated hourly snapshots of my home directory (much better than Mobile Time Machine) are sent to one of the backup file systems.

I have absolute certainty that the backup file systems are free from errors.

If ever an error affects a file in my home directory, ZFS will name that file and its path. I can then restore, or roll back …

grahamperrin
Nov 18, 2013, 12:52 PM
Pardon my previous post if I did not sound clear enough. Apple had intended to use ZFS as part of OS X, but after Oracle purchased Sun Microsystems, ZFS moved to a new license which made it impossible for Apple to use it in its commercial software. So, as I remember reading, Apple hired some filesystem engineers to work on a new system for OS X, although since it takes a number of years to create a new filesystem, it was not included in Snow Leopard, Lion, Mountain Lion, or Mavericks. I am hoping that the new system will appear as part of OS X 10.10 next year.

What was the new license? Where's the record of the move?

Apple is not able to use ZFS due to licensing terms, but the company did hire filesystem engineers several years ago to work on an alternative, which will likely include similar features to ZFS. I am hoping that OS X 10.10 will include said filesystem.

Please see http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=18084653#post18084653 and other posts in this topic.

I'm not aware of anything in the licence to prevent Apple from using ZFS.

danielsutton
Nov 19, 2013, 01:50 AM
What was the new license? Where's the record of the move?



Please see http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=18084653#post18084653 and other posts in this topic.

I'm not aware of anything in the licence to prevent Apple from using ZFS.

My understanding is that Oracle moved ZFS and some other projects to a variation of the General Public License, which forbids their use in commercial software. There was quite a bit of press coverage of this issue as Apple was trying to include ZFS in Snow Leopard Server, only to remove it entirely without saying much about why it was removed. Later on, we discovered that the issue was one of licensing terms after Sun Microsystems, along with Solaris and its ZFS filesystem was acquired by Oracle. Please correct me if I am mistaken.

I do remember reading, though, about the hiring of filesystem engineers by Apple, after the ZFS project fell through. It takes a number of years to create a new system, and this may be why we haven't seen one as of yet. I am hoping, though, that HFS+ will be replaced with a more robust system, and that this will happen in OS X 10.10 next year.

grahamperrin
Nov 19, 2013, 04:49 PM
Thanks …

My understanding is that Oracle moved ZFS and some other projects to a variation of the General Public License …

I'll seek a definitive answer.

In the meantime, I wonder whether people have different understandings of what's meant by the word ZFS. It was, for a while, abandoned as a trademark (https://web.archive.org/web/20120619074545/http://tdrapi.uspto.gov/ts/cd/casestatus/sn85194050/content.html). So, for example, ZEVO is an implementation of ZFS (with multiple copyright holders – not owned by Oracle); and so on.

Now again the mark is owned by Oracle America, Inc. (https://tsdrapi.uspto.gov/ts/cd/casestatus/sn85901629/content) but I believe that a key fact remains:

the ZFS most commonly associated with Apple – the open source code for ZFS – is subject to the CDDL.

Glassed Silver
Nov 20, 2013, 11:11 PM
Right now I have little to add to the conversation other than to say that apparently that petition is still accepting signatures and to add a personal note to this whole matter:

I'd happily sacrifice many years of feature additions or stock applications being added to OS X if I could have ZFS in turn.
It's my only REAL BIG GRIPE with OS X. Sure, I have others, but none come to close to this.

Glassed Silver:mac

dBeats
Nov 21, 2013, 07:57 AM
Most folks would cite 3 benefits: data integrity, data deduplication, and storage pool.

Data integrity: I have had a number of hard disks whose data became corrupted completely unbeknownst to me. And HFS+ retrieves corrupted file as if nothing has gone wrong.

I move TBs of data around all day long and I've never had a corrupted file, ever. I can replicate the German method to corrupt a file by using dd, but that is really academic in my opinion. I understand ZFS is technically better, but the reality is that for the average user, and even pro users, there's really nothing wrong with HFS+. Maybe...MAYBE if you have a transactional database running on a server this would be a little more of a concern. But data integrity has been wildly overblown as a reason to move from HFS+ to ZFS.

grahamperrin
Nov 21, 2013, 11:00 AM
… I've never had a corrupted file …

I hear you, but with respect: how do you verify the integrity of all files on your HFS Plus file systems?

I do have disks with HFS Plus that seem entirely free from corruption – the first that comes to mind is in a Macintosh Server G4, going strong after more than a decade. Its longevity always makes me smile, but since working with ZFS I have learnt to be less blas้ about its data.

I also have disks that seemed corruption-free with HFS Plus, that revealed a habit of corruption when given instead to ZFS. I could have given more detailed information in post 28 above (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=18379314#post18379314), but I don't want to turn this topic into a set of case studies.

It is possible that you truly never had a corrupted file, but I suggest the possibility/likelihood that you never knowingly had one.

… for the average user, and even pro users, there's really nothing wrong with HFS+.

I must disagree.

There is, at least, the latency issue. In the words of John Siracusa: "File system metadata structures in HFS+ have global locks. Only one process can update the file system at a time. This is an embarrassment … (http://arstechnica.com/apple/2011/07/mac-os-x-10-7/12/)". Since I have experimented over the past year or so with a variety of disk arrangements, I realise why he used the word embarrassing.

… data integrity has been wildly overblown as a reason to move from HFS+ to ZFS.

Maybe sometimes a little overblown for use cases where loss of data is bearable, but never wildly overblown. I'll seek some data on the subject.

In the meantime, there's this tweet from Don Brady, who has extraordinarily deep knowledge of both HFS Plus and ZFS on OS X:

https://twitter.com/DonJBrady/status/344599780120481792

dBeats
Nov 21, 2013, 05:22 PM
I hear you, but with respect: how do you verify the integrity of all files on your HFS Plus file systems?
...

It is possible that you truly never had a corrupted file, but I suggest the possibility/likelihood that you never knowingly had one.



Well, from my point of view, if there's a flipped bit in my 20GB file (typical sizes for what I do), the file would be worthless since there's no redundancy built into this particular file format. It's either perfect or unreadable. So I guess my litmus test is no one has come back to me saying "Hey this file doesn't work." I'm sure clients would love to complain to me about that (they sure complain a lot about other things!!)

I'm sure it only takes one incident for me to change my attitude, maybe I'm just lucky enough to not have that incident yet. But I have a feeling if this was really a data integrity problem, that Apple would have addressed it. At least that's what I want to think!

snarfquest
Nov 21, 2013, 06:10 PM
I installed the latest zfs for OSX on my OS X Server 3.0.1, on Mavericks 10.9. Seems stable etc..

However, performance it is very very slow. A fresh "new" timemachine backup went from 9 hours to 4 days. On a blackmagic disk speed test I went from 300mb/s to 20mb/s on the same array.

To clarify. The old array was a simple 8 disk raid 5.

I have the ability to test multiple scenarios. I have 2x Raid5 (dual port SATA3) controllers that I can configure to be Raid0, 1, 5, 10 or JBOD. I am comparing the 300mb/s at Raid5 vs JBOD with raidz. In total I have 16 SATA3 drives. 8 are 3TB Red WD drives and 8 are 2TB Red WD drives.

grahamperrin
Nov 22, 2013, 08:40 AM
… latest zfs for OSX …

Please, which version?

… on Mavericks 10.9. Seems stable etc.. …

Not for me: http://roaringapps.com/app/maczfs

grahamperrin
Nov 22, 2013, 09:35 AM
Petitions

… that petition is still accepting signatures

A link, for people who are unfamiliar –

Petition | Apple: OS X 10.9 - support OpenGL 4.3 and ZFS | Change.org (https://www.change.org/petitions/apple-os-x-10-9-support-opengl-4-3-and-zfs)

If/when the time comes for a comparable petition in relation to 10.10 – a petition focused solely on ZFS - we might add a link to the petition from the following topic:

OS X 10.10 codenamed Syrah (merged) (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1649521).

(OT: for a new petition, I have in mind the text for a draft.)

… It's my only REAL BIG GRIPE with OS X. Sure, I have others, but none come to close to this.

+1 (up-voted above).

Debatably much more important than petitions and votes:

Feedback to Apple

Apple - Mac OS X - Feedback (http://www.apple.com/feedback/macosx.html)

In a promoted comment under ZFS-loving Mac users demand support in OS X 10.9 | Ars Technica (http://arstechnica.com/apple/2013/02/zfs-loving-mac-users-demand-support-in-os-x-10-9/) (2013-02-12, highlights (https://diigo.com/01c6uk)):

… please strengthen your case by sending well-structured feedback to Apple. The communication may be one-way, but there's great value in using the recognised channel.

Hints: in Apple's form, keep feedback about ZFS separate from feedback about OpenGL; separate from feedback about HFS Plus. Stay positive. Make clear your use case.

I disagreed with only one point in the article:

… the demand for ZFS support may fall on deaf ears.

For a variety of reasons, I believe that Apple does pay attention to well-structured feedback.

Aside from the fact that Apple hasn't shown any indication that it will support anything other than HFS+ for the time being …

Now: in Mavericks there are, to my eye, at least two subtle indications that the operating system is prepared to gain support, of some sort, for an additional file system.

Back to the opening question –
OS X Mavericks (10.9) > Where is the ZFS?
– my guess is that support from Apple may be present, or greater, in 10.10 – but 10.10 is off-topic …

Glassed Silver
Nov 22, 2013, 03:53 PM
[...]

Now: in Mavericks there are, to my eye, at least two subtle indications that the operating system is prepared to gain support, of some sort, for an additional file system.

[...]

What are you referring to? I'd love to know. :)

~~~

Also, I created a Google Group to educate others and ourselves on how we can push this most effectively.
Click here (https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/rally-to-bring-native-zfs-to-the-mac)

I'm sure some of us would like a few pointer on what makes a good feedback or which categories to pick etc...
It's also an easy address to share to have a compendium of how to get involved overall. Anyone's free to add ideas.

Group description:
This group focusses on sharing ideas to spread the word about ZFS and building up pressure on Apple. This is not a technical support group, much more do we want to spread the word and find effective ways to get heard. If you want to actively work towards native ZFS for OS X, this group is for you!

Feel free to share, join and converse in the group as much as you'd like.
I set it up as forum, so you're free to set up email notifications however you'd like or disable anything email related all-together. :)

I started by making a 10 Steps to good Feedback kind of write-up.

Glassed Silver:mac

snarfquest
Nov 22, 2013, 06:05 PM
Please, which version?



Not for me: http://roaringapps.com/app/maczfs



74.3.1 (the .1 being the experimental pkg installer).

I got it here: https://code.google.com/p/maczfs/downloads/list

grahamperrin
Nov 22, 2013, 06:37 PM
… Also, I created a Google Group to educate others and ourselves on how we can push this most effectively.
Click here (https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/rally-to-bring-native-zfs-to-the-mac) …

Thanks!

The opening post there looks good to me. Smart thinking.

I have joined the group, but my contributions there may be sporadic. I'll be particularly busy with something ZFS-related for the next week or so.

grahamperrin
Nov 22, 2013, 06:52 PM
74.3.1 (the .1 being the experimental pkg installer). …

Thanks for clarifying. Related, in the ZEVO support forum:

Suitability of the stable version of MacZFS (http://zevo.getgreenbytes.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=5543#p5543)

In a nutshell: MacZFS 74.x lacks the feature set that I require (support for Spotlight, and so on).

… the latest zfs for OSX …

74.3.1 is not the most recent; please see the OpenZFS page for MacZFS (http://open-zfs.org/wiki/MacZFS).

grahamperrin
Nov 22, 2013, 08:26 PM
My understanding is that Oracle moved ZFS and some other projects to a variation of the General Public License …

Follow-up to post 32 (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=18393862#post18393862) above:

I asked around a few places, including some channels in IRC, and revisited some bookmarks. From what I gather: at least some of the confusion around GPL, in relation to ZFS, involves GNU GRUB (http://www.gnu.org/software/grub/). There is, for example, GRUB for Native ZFS : “Native ZFS for Linux” team (https://launchpad.net/~zfs-native/+archive/grub) – and GRUB is subject to a GPL – but that license does not extend to ZFS.

danielsutton
Nov 23, 2013, 01:10 AM
Thanks …



I'll seek a definitive answer.

In the meantime, I wonder whether people have different understandings of what's meant by the word ZFS. It was, for a while, abandoned as a trademark (https://web.archive.org/web/20120619074545/http://tdrapi.uspto.gov/ts/cd/casestatus/sn85194050/content.html). So, for example, ZEVO is an implementation of ZFS (with multiple copyright holders – not owned by Oracle); and so on.

Now again the mark is owned by Oracle America, Inc. (https://tsdrapi.uspto.gov/ts/cd/casestatus/sn85901629/content) but I believe that a key fact remains:

the ZFS most commonly associated with Apple – the open source code for ZFS – is subject to the CDDL.

Thank you for the clarifications! It is good to hear more about this. I do remember, however, hearing that Apple hired some filesystem engineers a few years back, so it may be that the company wants to build its own filesystem, rather than use one that already exists. Apple does have a tendency to re-invent and re-imagine things, and so I am thinking that they may want to re-invent the filesystem as we know it. Would be interesting if they tied the local Mac and iOS filesystems in with iCloud in some way, to create a "CloudFS" implementation. I am brainstorming here, but this is one great thing about Forums, that we can have open discussions about technologies and make predictions about what may be to come.

MyMac1976
Nov 23, 2013, 06:53 AM
If you want ZFS you'll have to use BSD.

HFS+ is pretty old and ZFS would be the logical choice but Apple will come up with something proprietary

grahamperrin
Nov 23, 2013, 07:02 AM
What are you referring to? I'd love to know. :) …

The very few things that I imagine to be clues about ZFS are nothing to get excited about. One thing involves a behaviour that's seen in relation to HFS Plus. Another involves a behaviour that's seen in Mountain Lion but not in Mavericks … the sort of thing that I'd expect with improvements to an operating system that "just works". Subtle, in an Apple way.

… Apple hired some filesystem engineers a few years back …

Certainly there have been periods of focus on Apple Core Storage (a storage system but not a file system).

I don't doubt that Apple might internally and privately make great strides in file system development, but in my opinion there's a powerful and growing case for Apple to take best advantage of the expertise within (http://open-zfs.org/wiki/Contributors) and around the OpenZFS community. Some of what's around this open-source community can't be open in the same way, but can be equally valuable in raising the overall profile of OpenZFS as an outstanding storage platform (http://open-zfs.org/wiki/Main_Page).

Two potential challenges:

how to make the ZFS-oriented communities – as a whole (not the MacZFS community alone) – as attractive to Apple as they were, for a while, before OpenZFS existed
accepting that a mutually advantageous relationship might involve something less than complete openness from Apple and other sides.

I feel passionately about those two points, and can offer some suggestions, but I'd like to hear what others think.

… we can have open discussions about technologies and make predictions about what may be to come.

I must emphasise: none of what I say here relates to 10.9.1 or greater. Such things are strictly confidential.

In the context of this topic: my experience is with prerelease and released builds of 10.9.

Hopefully some final points on licensing: there's a healthy interest, but my reactions to debate about ZFS, Apple and licensing are sometimes akin to an illumos community reaction to debate about package management (http://illumosreactions.tumblr.com/post/55116414304/someone-brings-up-the-package-management-debate) :eek:

In part one of the series of videos from this week's OpenZFS Developer Summit (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3dMhpmQTrU&list=PLaUVvul17xSdWMBt5tAC8Hu7bbeWskD_q) there were, I recall, at least two questions about licensing. It's a healthy interest but the questions were politely, professionally deferred; I take this as a strong indication that licensing is not a hindrance to development :)

grahamperrin
Nov 23, 2013, 07:16 AM
… Apple will come up with something proprietary

For storage/file systems development, with proprietary (alone) comes the risk that what's delivered will be inferior, in too many ways, to systems that were more openly developed.

Take, for example, Microsoft ReFS. I don't want to get too much into bashing but I see an extremely wealthy organisation delivering a technology that's a poor substitute for ZFS. Yes, ReFS has data checksumming capability but if I'm not mistaken, that capability is disabled by default. From a ZFS perspective (more than twelve years mature with integrity in mind from the outset), I could brutally describe Microsoft's new ReFS as fundamentally retarded.

(Why is checksumming not enabled; what's the downside? Why is ReFS not an option for consumer editions of Microsoft's OSes? And so on.)

MyMac1976
Nov 23, 2013, 07:26 AM
For storage/file systems development, with proprietary (alone) comes the risk that what's delivered will be inferior, in too many ways, to systems that were more openly developed.

Take, for example, Microsoft ReFS. I don't want to get too much into bashing but I see an extremely wealthy organisation delivering a technology that's a poor substitute for ZFS. Yes, ReFS has data checksumming capability but if I'm not mistaken, that capability is disabled by default. From a ZFS perspective (more than twelve years mature with integrity in mind from the outset), I could brutally describe Microsoft's new ReFS as fundamentally retarded.

(Why is checksumming not enabled; what's the downside? Why is ReFS not an option for consumer editions of Microsoft's OSes? And so on.)

I'm not justifying it, it's just Apple's MO..

I use butter I'm sure the butter team could use Apples resources just like I'm sure the the ZFS crew could use them too..

ZFS is about the best out there but Apple just needs to play ball and they don't like to do that.

Dunno man, it's be a big win for ZFS if adopted by Apple.

grahamperrin
Nov 23, 2013, 09:17 AM
… Apple's MO.. … Apple just needs to play ball and they don't like to do that. … a big win for ZFS if adopted by Apple.

Whilst I can't give a developer perspective (I'm an end user) I can say without hesitation that in at least some dealings with customers, Apple does proactively play ball … as best it can, given the numbers involved and the passions that are expressed. With so many millions of customers and such diversity, it simply can't be that "the customer is always right". ;)

Every individual has a modus operandi, or more than one. My M.O.s are sometimes far from perfect. (I recall private discussions where my enthusiasm for ZFS – my wish for people to realise its potential in relation to OS X – made me the target of some abuse. Combinations of private and public abuse, no matter how small the quantities, can quickly bring a person down and so I occasionally divorce myself from certain areas but never lose sight of the bigger picture, of which ZFS is a part. But enough about me.)

Organisational M.O.s? Try to not take too much notice of the press. It's occasionally entertaining to take an epic view of the Sun–Oracle–Apple thing as commonly portrayed by the press, but there's no substitute for personal experience. As much as I like to play down the Oracle part (it is, after all, easily viewed as just one milestone in the history of OpenZFS (http://open-zfs.org/wiki/History)), I found myself unexpectedly touched by Deirdr้ Straughan's five-part series of blog posts (the sixth is not yet written). For anyone with an interest in the acquisition of Sun, recommended reading: Resistance is Futile: The Oracle Acquisition (http://www.beginningwithi.com/2012/07/01/resistance-is-futile-the-oracle-acquisition/).

incidentally, when I think about the two potential challenges (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=18412206#post18412206) given above, I think first of the modi operandi of individuals and groups …

Nicholas Savage
Nov 23, 2013, 08:27 PM
Huh.

For me, the disk integrity features of ZFS are a part of my interest in using it. The rest is raid/caching/flexibility/cost-savings related. I can get 2x consumer/nas sata drives for the price of nearline SAS or raid drives. It is stupid easy to scale up/down to adjust for client needs. Getting raid and storage redundancy that is hardware agnostic is beyond awesome :P.

I have already had to recover a big raidz pool when someone's sas host card fried. . .attached the drives to two SATA FIS switching port replicators; brought the pools up. Used that hardware until the replacement raid card came. Have fun doing that when your synology box implodes.

Bah. Anyway.

On another note, Apple needs an nicely integrated iSCSI Initiator.

grahamperrin
Nov 25, 2013, 07:53 PM
File systems dairy

… I use butter I'm sure the butter team could use Apples resources just like I'm sure the the ZFS crew could use them too. …

For any reader who is puzzled by the reference to dairy produce: this one is unrelated to cows. butter F S is a pronunciation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Btrfs) of Btrfs (https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/) – another type of file system that uses CoW.

For any reader who is puzzled by the uppercase C and W: moo (http://youtu.be/YntL3l15u_k?t=3m) :)

Performance of ZFS with and without RAID-Z, on OS X and elsewhere; and RAID

… ZFS … performance it is very very slow.

To clarify. The old array was a simple 8 disk raid 5.

A few points.

Unlike snarfquest, I never worked with a 74.x version of MacZFS so I can't comment on its performance.

https://diigo.com/01cjz0 "… RAID-10 is preferable to either RAID-5/6 or RAID-Z for high performance work such as video editing …". That's taken from my ZFS RAID collection of bookmarks (https://www.diigo.com/user/grahamperrin/ZFS%20RAID), which probably includes links to stuff about comparisons with RAID-5, but see below.

At this point in time I expect neither ZEVO nor ZFS-OSX to be optimised for performance across the broadest possible range of use cases.

That said, since I began using the tunables within ZEVO (http://zevo.getgreenbytes.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2240) – around two weeks ago – there's a remarkable increase in performance (a MacBookPro5,2 that's unusually heavily loaded with data).

I understand that the state of development of OS X is not universally pleasing to developers, but from my customer perspective:

Apple has done a amazingly good job with Mavericks

– more than with any past major upgrade (Leopard to Snow Leopard, Lion to Mountain Lion and so on), the difference in performance between Mountain Lion and Mavericks is remarkable. YMMV, personally I'm delighted … occasional wow moments. I always argue that benchmarks alone can't do justice to the quality of an OS. Holistically, the performance of Mavericks is very pleasing and hopefully a sign of better things to come.

(Performance aside: I haven't used 10.9 enough to recommend it without hesitation. My hesitation is likely to cease after 10.9.1 is released.)

OK, what about performance of ZFS with (not in) Mavericks?

When I have something substantial to report, it'll probably appear in the rally (https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/rally-to-bring-native-zfs-to-the-mac) area. In the meantime, https://twitter.com/grahamperrin/status/405121768307703808 includes a link to a presentation from the OpenZFS Developer Summit.

I assume that "data-driven, adaptive algorithms" – as a potential next step for OpenZFS generally (not for OS X in particular) – could mean an end to people like me wondering about the pros and cons of tunables. If Apple is to go with ZFS/OpenZFS, I'd ask the company to accelerate this step.

File systems diary

Dates? No! Dont ask! For me it's Mac Pro (http://www.macrumors.com/roundup/mac-pro/) first then I might speculate about what's next on the road/rally to 10.10.

Freyqq
Nov 26, 2013, 10:24 PM
HFS+ and FAT32 are the only file systems that I've ever had to deal with corruption and lost data. NTFS has always been rock solid. I look forward to a revised filesystem from Apple in the future.

grahamperrin
Nov 27, 2013, 04:05 AM
Back for a moment to page two, the other Microsoft example (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=18412235#post18412235). I'm reminded that ReFS alone (without Storage Spaces) can not automatically correct corruption (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/hh848060(v=vs.85).aspx).

… NTFS has always been rock solid.

With the same respect that's in post 35 (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=18403150#post18403150) on page two, I'd ask any user of NTFS how she or he verifies the integrity of all files, all data, all metadata within the file system.

With hundreds of computers running Windows in my work area (thankfully not all nearby) I sometimes get a sense, without thorough investigation, of when NTFS is less than solid. CHKDSK might not reveal anything, but when a machine's playing up in a certain way I can guess that the disk will be on its way out before long. A few months ago, the guesses soon proved true for four of five heavily used machines in a student lounge. (I could/should have been more proactive about thoroughly checking the disks with something like HDAT2 (http://www.hdat2.com) (on UBCD (http://www.ultimatebootcd.com)) – long before the failures – but I knew that we'd get new machines before long so I was quite blas้ about it.)

I look forward to a revised filesystem from Apple in the future.

+1

MyMac1976
Nov 27, 2013, 02:42 PM
HFS+ and FAT32 are the only file systems that I've ever had to deal with corruption and lost data. NTFS has always been rock solid. I look forward to a revised filesystem from Apple in the future.

Stability is not what people who look to ZFS and Btrfs are looking for. I've not had an unstable file system since the early 90's it's more redundancy.

Here is what btrfs says about itself in it's Wiki

Btrfs is a new copy on write (CoW) filesystem for Linux aimed at implementing advanced features while focusing on fault tolerance, repair and easy administration. Jointly developed at Oracle, Red Hat, Fujitsu, Intel, SUSE, STRATO and many others, Btrfs is licensed under the GPL and open for contribution from anyone.

The neat part about both Btrfs and ZFS is the ability to roll back to a known good state. I use Btrfs because I use Arch as my primary OS, Arch sits on the bleeding edge and if there is a problem I want to be back immediately. Btrfs was intended to be the ZFS of Linux, and it accomplishes much of what ZFS does but in a more clumsy way. I think it'll be as effective as ZFS once it's been around as long as ZFS.

HFS+ dates from the '80's it's time for Apple to move on ZFS wouold probably be the easiest but....

rekhyt
Dec 1, 2013, 10:37 AM
I move TBs of data around all day long and I've never had a corrupted file, ever. I can replicate the German method to corrupt a file by using dd, but that is really academic in my opinion. I understand ZFS is technically better, but the reality is that for the average user, and even pro users, there's really nothing wrong with HFS+. Maybe...MAYBE if you have a transactional database running on a server this would be a little more of a concern. But data integrity has been wildly overblown as a reason to move from HFS+ to ZFS.

I'm a novice user so I don't really know much about the theory behind filesystems like this (I've been trying to follow the thread avidly though) and data corruption is one of my biggest fears (although it hasn't happened yet).

I was wondering whether you could tell me how I could determine the integrity of my data on my harddrives.

Thanks.

grahamperrin
Dec 1, 2013, 01:38 PM
… how I could determine the integrity of my data on my harddrives. …

For HFS Plus: diglloydTools IntegrityChecker (http://diglloydtools.com/integritychecker.html) can be used to detect future corruption, but not to detect corruption that may have occurred before use of the product.

Related, in Ask Different: How should a user of OS X verify whether backed up data comprises everything required for lossless restoration? (http://apple.stackexchange.com/q/55579/8546)

If/when there appears a version of ZEVO (http://getgreenbytes.com/solutions/zevo/) for Mavericks, then you'll be able to give all or part of a disk to ZFS – instead of HFS Plus.

In ZFS terminology: a pool can be scrubbed; this verifies the integrity of all data on all disks within a pool. You can start and stop a scrub with the ZEVO pane of System Preferences:

grahamperrin
Dec 3, 2013, 01:18 AM
What are you referring to? I'd love to know. :) …

One of the things …

With a clean installation of Mavericks – without ZEVO

If you attach a disk that was used with ZEVO Community Edition 1.1.1, you should not see a prompt to initialise the disk.

The yellow alert (screenshot attached):

does still exist in Mavericks
does not apply to ZEVO data disks (I can't recall how the OS responds to attachment of cache (L2ARC) disks from ZEVO).

Simply: it's not appropriate to suggest immediate destruction of what may be valuable data.

On its own, this enhancement to the operating system is not cause for excitement in this topic. When I last tested, a few months ago, I found that the enhancement was not specific to ZFS.

Glassed Silver
Dec 3, 2013, 03:53 PM
Holy schmokes, seems you folks have been quite active since the last time I was in this thread.
I'll catch up later, but this straight away:

One of the things …

With a clean installation of Mavericks – without ZEVO

If you attach a disk that was used with ZEVO Community Edition 1.1.1, you should not see a prompt to initialise the disk.

The yellow alert (screenshot attached):

does still exist in Mavericks
does not apply to ZEVO data disks (I can't recall how the OS responds to attachment of cache (L2ARC) disks from ZEVO).

Simply: it's not appropriate to suggest immediate destruction of what may be valuable data.

On its own, this enhancement to the operating system is not cause for excitement in this topic. When I last tested, a few months ago, I found that the enhancement was not specific to ZFS.

Uhm, it's been a long day today and my head is filled with my Italian lessons, so I assume I'm not quite getting where you're getting at here.
What's the enhancement precisely?

The box that asks whether one wants to initialize or cancel (/continue anyway)?

For HFS Plus: diglloydTools IntegrityChecker (http://diglloydtools.com/integritychecker.html) can be used to detect future corruption, but not to detect corruption that may have occurred before use of the product.

[...]
That's awesome, I've been looking for something like this.
Are there free or less alternatives, too? Maybe open source even?
40 bucks for a good software sure isn't too much, but this is merely a 1-year license and with OS X being on a yearly upgrade path, I'll wildly assume that yearly updates to such a software is advisable.
I know it gets dramatically cheaper for 2 years and up, but a) 40 bucks is a lot of moolah for me right now and b) whatever the sum, 40 or 55 or whatever, before throwing such amounts of cash at a developer I want to be convinced by their product. It's a commitment past the worries of licensing fees.

Glassed Silver:mac

grahamperrin
Dec 3, 2013, 10:08 PM
… I'm not quite getting where you're getting at here.
What's the enhancement precisely?

The box that asks whether one wants to initialize or cancel (/continue anyway)? …

I do find it difficult to describe. The point of interest is what's not seen.

An example. If you use ZEVO with Mountain Lion then upgrade to Mavericks: the disk is readable, the ZFS file system is not.

The disk is basically readable by the operating system – amongst the slices, in a partitioning scheme that's Mavericks-friendly, the OS recognises the presence of a ZFS slice. It's reasonable to assume that the slice will contain data, so logically:
the box (the yellow alert with an option to initialise) does not appear.

The file system is not readable, which brings us full circle to the primary question in this topic:
Where is the ZFS?

… quite active …

My own activity aside: I hear rumours about rumours but these are not yet good enough for MacRumors.

… 40 bucks for a good software sure isn't too much, but this is merely a 1-year license …

Indeed it's not costly. But if you contemplate an add-on to HFS Plus because ZEVO Community Edition 1.1.1 is incompatible with Mavericks and/or because ZFS-OSX is not yet stable: I would suggest waiting a while.

Glassed Silver
Dec 4, 2013, 12:44 PM
I do find it difficult to describe. The point of interest is what's not seen.

An example. If you use ZEVO with Mountain Lion then upgrade to Mavericks: the disk is readable, the ZFS file system is not.

The disk is basically readable by the operating system – amongst the slices, in a partitioning scheme that's Mavericks-friendly, the OS recognises the presence of a ZFS slice. It's reasonable to assume that the slice will contain data, so logically:
the box (the yellow alert with an option to initialise) does not appear.

The file system is not readable, which brings us full circle to the primary question in this topic:
Where is the ZFS?



My own activity aside: I hear rumours about rumours but these are not yet good enough for MacRumors.



Indeed it's not costly. But if you contemplate an add-on to HFS Plus because ZEVO Community Edition 1.1.1 is incompatible with Mavericks and/or because ZFS-OSX is not yet stable: I would suggest waiting a while.

I'll do this in 1,2,3 :)

No. 1
I see, well that's interesting indeed. I see what you mean now and maybe it's something.

No. 2
Good enough for me, I love me a good rumor [about rumors] when it comes to ZFS and the Mac. Bring it on, bro, I read your warning note now, time for the rumors! If you don't want to be that guy who spreads rumors on rumors that are vague and even too shakey for MR, then drop me a PM. :)

No. 3
Hmm, maybe, but meanwhile I'm sitting here continuing to shiver away at the thought of losing valuable data... :D

Glassed Silver:mac

grahamperrin
Dec 4, 2013, 09:04 PM
Sorry, no private messaging. When it's good for public consumption, it'll be duly publicised.